The account of the fall of Dhaka and the surrender of Gen. Niazi and Pakistani troops is so graphically narrated by Gen. Jacob, the principal actor who single-handedly managed this surrender, that with his consent, I quote it in full: On 13 December there was an American resolution in the Security Council demanding an immediate withdrawal which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The latter then informed us that there would be no more vetoes. Manekshaw then issued an order to us to capture all the towns we had bypassed, and cited these. There was no mention at all of Dacca though we were on the outskirts. He copied this order to our corps commanders. If we implemented this order we would have had to pull back our troops. At the Eastern Command, we decided to ignore it and proceed with our offensive on Dacca! I am reminded of a parallel: Nelson prior to battle of Copenhagen in 1801, when ordered to withdraw, put the telescope to his blind eye with words, ‘I see no order to withdraw: Attack!!’ I was being blamed for the strategy and plan to bypass the towns and go for Dacca. I was told by Aurora that ‘my head would be on the chopping block’. I got through to Niazi on the wireless on the night of 13 December, and offered generous terms if he surrendered; that we would ensure protection of ethnic minorities and that the forces who surrendered would be treated with the dignity due to soldiers as required by the Geneva Convention. I also spoke to him on 14, 15, and the morning of 16 December. On the morning of 14 December we got a lucky break: a signal intercept indicating that there was to be a meeting at Government House at 1200 hours. We arranged with the air force to bomb it. The strike was effective and the governor, Dr Abdul Motaleb Malik resigned and went to the Intercontinental Hotel. That was the end of the last government of East Pakistan. That evening Niazi and Farman Ali handed over a ceasefire proposal to the American Consul General Spivack, the proposal specifying: (1) A ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities, (2) hand-over of the administration to the UN, (3) the UN ensuring (a) the safety of all armed and paramilitary forces pending their return to West Pakistan, (b) the safety of all West Pakistan civilians, (c) the safety of all migrants settled since 1947, (d) no reprisals. There was no mention of India in the proposals. The message was delievered to Bhutto in New York on 15 December where he was attending meetings of the Security Council. Bhutto rejected the ceasefire proposals outright. The Security Council that night was debating a Polish Resolution (Soviet block) requiring a ceasefire and withdrawal. Bhutto tore up the resolution as it did not, as other resolutions did condemn India for being an aggressor. He shouted at the meeting that they would never surrender but would fight to the bitter end. On the morning of 16 December, Manekshaw phoned me and said, ‘Jake, go and get a surrender.’ I asked him if I should negotiate the surrender on the basis of the draft sent to him some days earlier. He replied, ‘You know what to do; just go.’ I then mentioned that Niazi had invited me for lunch, and informed Aurora. I met Mrs Bhanti Aurora outside the office, and she told me that she was going to Dacca as her place was beside her husband. I returned to Aurora and asked him if he was taking his wife with him. He replied in the affirmative. I said it was risky taking her there, to which he replied that it would be my responsibility to ensure her safety! I proceeded to Dacca accompanied by a staff officer. I took my draft of the Instrument of Surrender, which was yet to be confirmed by Army HQ. I changed helicopters at Jessore to save refuelling time. An officer ran up to me handing over a signal message from Army HQ. I expected that the message would confirm the draft I was carrying with me. It read: ‘Government of India has approved of General Jacob having lunch with Gen. Niazi.’ I proceeded on to Dacca. On landing at Dacca, I was met by the representatives of the UN, Marc Henry, Kelly, and others. They told me that they were accompanying me to take over the government and to arrange the withdrawal of the Pakistan military, paramilitary, and Pakistani civilians. I thanked them but declined their offer. Fighting was going on in Dacca between the Mukti Bahini and the Pakistan Army. The Pakistanis had sent me a staff car. The chief of staff of Pakistan’s Eastern Command accompanied me in the car to the headquarters of Eastern Command. We had barely proceeded a few hundred yards when a group of freedom fighters blocking the road fired at the car. I jumped out exclaiming ‘Indian Army’. Seeing my olive green Indian Army uniform they stopped firing but wanted to kill the Pakistani chief of staff. I reasoned with them, trying to persuade them to allow us to proceed. They reluctantly agreed. Meanwhile the press caught up with us. The Time Magazine correspondent reported that I had threatened to ‘shoot you fellows’. I was unarmed! After a few minutes we were allowed to proceed. I entered Niazi’s office. Present there were the senior most Pakistani army, navy, and air force officers, as also some other senior military officers. I was shocked to see Maj. Gen. Nagra seated on the sofa with his arm around Niazi engaged in cracking bawdy jokes in Punjabi. Siddiq Salik in his book Witness to Surrender(1977) wrote that the jokes were unprintable! We had moved Nagra just a few days earlier to replace Maj. Gen. Gurbax Singh, who was in command of the force that was moving to capture Dacca, but was wounded. Nagra had known Niazi from before when he was posted as military advisor to our High Commission in Islamabad. The ceasefire had taken effect at 1700 hours on 15 December. On the morning of 16 December, Nagra, who was some 30 miles outside Dacca with elements of 95 Mountain Brigade and 2 Para, well after the ceasefire went into force, sent a message to Niazi to send his representative. Niazi was at a loss to understand this message as he was expecting me. Nagra, flying a white flag, was escorted to Niazi’s headquarters. I saw the three jeeps with white flags parked outside. I called Nagra outside, gave him a sharp dressing down for disgraceful conduct unbecoming of a general officer. I told him to send some troops into Dacca, to the airfield and Intercontinental Hotel to protect the officials there. I also instructed him to arrange a table and two chairs at the Race Course for signature of The Instrument of Surrender, as also to provide a detachment for a joint guard of honour. I told him to leave behind a jeep for me. Nagra’s later conduct was questionable. He hijacked Maj. Gen. Rao Farman Ali’s new Mercedes and drove off with it to his former HQ jn Assam. He was ordered to hand it over to command HQ. where it was taken on charge and given a registration number by Army HQ. There were several other allegations against the general. Aurora declined to recommend him for any decoration and wanted to institute disciplinary proceedings against him. He however reconsidered the matter and decided not to. I re-entered the building. The draft Instrument of Surrender was read out. Niazi, with tears rolling down his cheeks, said: ‘Who said I am surrendering? You have only come to discuss a ceasefire and withdrawal as proposed by me.’ The service chiefs present also voiced their objections. Rao Farman Ali objected to surrendering to a ‘Joint Command’. Time was running out so I called Niazi aside. I told him that if he did not surrender I could not take responsibility for the safety of their families and ethnic minorities but if he did I would ensure their protection. I asked him to reconsider, again reminding him that if he did not surrender I would not be responsible for the safety of their families. I then added that I would give him 30 minutes to reconsider and if he did not I would order the resumption of hostilities and the bombing of Dacca. I then walked out to be met by the press. I was extremely worried. Niazi had 26,400 troops in Dacca, we had about 3,000 some 30 miles out. I was in a quandary as what to do in the event of his refusing. Aurora and his entourage were expected to land in an hour or two and the ceasefire was to expire shortly. I had nothing in hand. The Pakistan Commission of Enquiry report later stated ‘there was Gen. Jacob pacing outside, calmly puffing his pipe’. Far from it, I was extremely worried and tense. I spoke to the Pakistani sentry asking him about his family. He burst into tears saying that I as an Indian officer was talking to him whilst his own officers did not. After 30 minutes I walked into the office to be met by a deathly silence, my draft surrender document lying on the table. I asked Niazi if he accepted this document, to which he did not reply. I repeated the enquiry thrice. He still did not respond. I then picked up the document, holding it high, and said ‘I take it as accepted’. Tears rolled down Niazi’s cheeks, there were glares from those present. I called Niazi aside and then told him that I had arranged for the signing to take place at the Race Course in public. He objected strongly. I then told him that he would have to surrender his sword. He said that he did not have a sword but would surrender his revolver. I then told him he would have to provide a guard of honour. My thoughts went back to 1945 just after the Japanese surrender. When I landed in Sumatra, the Japanese provided me with a guard of honour. Niazi said there was no one to command it. I pointed to his ADC and said that he should command it. I permitted them to retain their weapons for their protection until such time as we could disarm them. I then discussed with his chief of staff other modalities regarding the surrender of other garrisons and troops. I tried to get through on the wireless to Aurora who could not be contacted. Apparently he had gone to Agartala to pick up Gen. Sagat Singh. We then moved to the Mess for lunch. Gavin Young of the Observer was standing outside and requested if he could have lunch. We moved to the dining room. I was taken aback to see the tables properly set and loaded with silver trophies. I did not feel like eating and moved to one side. Gavin Young did a two-page piece for his paper the Observer, ‘The Surrender Lunch’. At around 1560 Hours, I asked Niazi to accompany me to the airport. As Nagra had not left a jeep for me, I sat with Niazi in his staff car. The Mukti Bahini fighters jumped on the car and it was with some difficulty that we reached the airport. Fortunately, en route we stopped a jeep with two of our paratroopers who were sightseeing. I asked them to follow us. Nagra had not sent any troops to the airfield. I sent my staff officer to go and see if he could get some troops, some of whom should be entering the city. A little while later a truck loaded with armed Mukti Bahini arrived at the airfield. A man wearing our olive green uniform, wearing the badges of rank of a major general approached us, followed by two armed men. I placed him as ‘Tiger’ Siddiqui and sensed trouble. Siddiqui, who had some 20,000 fighters, did not fire a shot to halt the Pakistanis retreating through Tangail and did not move with us to Dacca. I felt that he had come to kill Niazi. I had to ensure that Niazi lived to sign the Instrument of Surrender. I told the two paratroopers to cover Niazi and point their rifles at Siddiqui. I politely asked Siddiqui to leave the airfield. He did not respond. I repeated this request. He still did not respond. I then shouted to him to get his truckload of fighters off the airfield, and heaved a sigh of relief when they left. A few days later Siddiqui called the international media with their camera crews to witness the public bayoneting of people he called traitors. These pictures were later widely circulated. Around 1630 hours Aurora and his entourage arrived in a fleet of five M14 and four Allouette helicopters. Aurora was accompanied by his wife and the navy and air force chiefs. Lt Gen. Sagat Singh and some of his divisional commanders also alighted, as did Wing Commander Khondker. Osmani, unfortunately was not there; the helicopter in which he had been travelling having been shot at and damaged. I had planned to travel in the last car with Aurora and Niazi, but Aurora asked me to make way for his wife, who then took her place by her husband’s side. The ADC, who was carrying the papers to be signed and I had to hitch our way on a truck to the Race Course. Though there was very little time for any preparations, the ceremony went off reasonably well. After inspecting the guard of honour, Aurora and Niazi sat at the table and signed the Instrument of Surrender. I glanced at the documents and was aghast to see the heading which read ‘Instrument of Surrender—to be signed at 1631 1ST [Indian Standard Time]’. I looked at my watch, which showed that the time was 1655 hours. The documents they brought to be signed had to be re-signed by both in Calcutta some two weeks later! Niazi removed his epaulette, took out his revolver and handed it to Aurora; tears rolled down his cheeks. It was getting dark. The crowd at the Race Course began shouting and there were threats to lynch Niazi; anti-Pakistani slogans and abuses resounded. They then moved towards Niazi. The senior officers present formed a cordon around him and whisked him off in one of our jeeps. I briefed Lt Gen. Sagat Singh regarding the disarming of the Pakistanis and other modalities. We then returned to the airfield. Rear Admiral Shariff, whom I had given permission to meet our naval commander, met Vice Admiral Krishnan. Krishnan asked Shariff to hand over his pistol to him, which he did. We then took off for Agartala and thence to Calcutta. I wondered why 1631 hours (4.31 p.m.) was the time specified for signature of the Instrument of Surrender. Parliament was in session so perhaps Manekshaw had told Indira Gandhi that it would be signed at that time. Members were anxious to know what was happening. According to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, the chief minister of West Bengal, who was present in parliament that day, members were anxious to know about the progress of negotiations. The minister of defence repeatedly stated that Gen. Jacob was having lunch. It was most ironic that amidst all these tumultuous events, Jacob would be remembered by posterity for enjoying a very long and leisurely lunch! Sometime later, when I examined the revolver that Niazi had surrendered, I realized that it could not have been Niazi’s. The barrel was choked with muck and had not been cleaned for some considerable time, the lanyard was frayed and dirty. This could not have been the personal weapon of a commanding general. Niazi had probably taken it from one of the military policemen and surrendered it as his personal weapon. I could not help feeling that in a small way Niazi had got some of his own back. The military operations have been described as a ‘lightning campaign and is studied in military institutions in many countries. In the words of a later Pakistani document of the war with the National Defence College of Pakistan: The Indians planned and executed their offensive against East Pakistan in a textbook manner. It was a classic example of thorough planning, minute coordination, and bold execution. The credit clearly goes to General Jacob’s meticulous preparations in the Indian Eastern Command and its implementation by his corps commanders. Niazi had proposed a ceasefire under UN auspices, withdrawal under the UN, hand over of the government to the UN, and no reprisals. There was no mention of India in his ceasefire proposal. On 16 December he had 26,400 troops in Dacca, we some 3000 outside. The UN Security Council was in session debating a Polish Resolution. He could have fought on for at least two more weeks, and had he fought on for even one more day, the UN Security Council would have ordered a withdrawal. Some Pakistanis say that Niazi’s nerve broke and that I bluffed him into surrendering. I negotiated the surrender on my unconfirmed draft document that I had sent to Delhi. It would perhaps be pertinent to quote the Pakistan Government’s Hamoodur Rehman Commission of Enquiry Report: ‘General Niazi, when you had 26,400 troops in Dacca and the Indians a few thousand outside you could have fought on for at least two more weeks, with the UN Security Council in session. Had you fought on for even one more day the Indians would have had to go back, why then did you accept a shameful unconditional public surrender and provide a guard of honour commanded by your ADC?’ Niazi: ‘I was compelled to do so by Jacob who blackmailed me into surrendering …’ This he has repeated in his book The Betrayal of East Pakistan, published in 1988. Suppose I had failed in Dacca to convert the ceasefire under the UN as proposed by Niazi into an unconditional public surrender, the only one in history, we would have had to go back the next day. I did not fail and India became a regional superpower. The campaign was indeed a ‘very close run thing’. We were extremely lucky. The campaign, though studied by armies abroad, is not studied in much detail in India, nor have the lessons from it, particularly mobility and logistics, been given sufficient weightage. A ceasefire was converted into a surrender and signed in the space of some four hours. The modalities for the ceremony were basic and were arranged with meagre resources. To quote the Duke of Wellington again after Waterloo: ‘It was a close run thing!’ The Pakistanis have no love for the Jews. The Pakistanis are well aware that I am a Jew. It is therefore surprising that in their study at the Pakistan National Defence College on the 1971 war in East Pakistan, they give credit for the Indian victory clearly to ‘Maj. Gen. Jacob’. In India, however, my contribution to the ‘textbook’ campaign and in converting a ceasefire into an unconditional public surrender, the only one in history, is not widely known. I would like to reiterate that when my book Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation was published in 1997, I personally gave Manekshaw and Aurora copies of it at a time when they were both fit and active; neither issued any rejoinder. The book has been translated into Chinese, Thai, Persian, Arabic, Bengali, and Hebrew.The account of the fall of Dhaka and the surrender of Gen. Niazi and Pakistani troops is so graphically narrated by Gen. Jacob, the principal actor who single-handedly managed this surrender, that with his consent, I quote it in full: On 13 December there was an American resolution in the Security Council demanding an immediate withdrawal which was vetoed by the Soviet Union. The latter then informed us that there would be no more vetoes. Manekshaw then issued an order to us to capture all the towns we had bypassed, and cited these. There was no mention at all of Dacca though we were on the outskirts. He copied this order to our corps commanders. If we implemented this order we would have had to pull back our troops. At the Eastern Command, we decided to ignore it and proceed with our offensive on Dacca! I am reminded of a parallel: Nelson prior to battle of Copenhagen in 1801, when ordered to withdraw, put the telescope to his blind eye with words, ‘I see no order to withdraw: Attack!!’ I was being blamed for the strategy and plan to bypass the towns and go for Dacca. I was told by Aurora that ‘my head would be on the chopping block’. I got through to Niazi on the wireless on the night of 13 December, and offered generous terms if he surrendered; that we would ensure protection of ethnic minorities and that the forces who surrendered would be treated with the dignity due to soldiers as required by the Geneva Convention. I also spoke to him on 14, 15, and the morning of 16 December. On the morning of 14 December we got a lucky break: a signal intercept indicating that there was to be a meeting at Government House at 1200 hours. We arranged with the air force to bomb it. The strike was effective and the governor, Dr Abdul Motaleb Malik resigned and went to the Intercontinental Hotel. That was the end of the last government of East Pakistan. That evening Niazi and Farman Ali handed over a ceasefire proposal to the American Consul General Spivack, the proposal specifying: (1) A ceasefire and a cessation of all hostilities, (2) hand-over of the administration to the UN, (3) the UN ensuring (a) the safety of all armed and paramilitary forces pending their return to West Pakistan, (b) the safety of all West Pakistan civilians, (c) the safety of all migrants settled since 1947, (d) no reprisals. There was no mention of India in the proposals. The message was delievered to Bhutto in New York on 15 December where he was attending meetings of the Security Council. Bhutto rejected the ceasefire proposals outright. The Security Council that night was debating a Polish Resolution (Soviet block) requiring a ceasefire and withdrawal. Bhutto tore up the resolution as it did not, as other resolutions did condemn India for being an aggressor. He shouted at the meeting that they would never surrender but would fight to the bitter end. On the morning of 16 December, Manekshaw phoned me and said, ‘Jake, go and get a surrender.’ I asked him if I should negotiate the surrender on the basis of the draft sent to him some days earlier. He replied, ‘You know what to do; just go.’ I then mentioned that Niazi had invited me for lunch, and informed Aurora. I met Mrs Bhanti Aurora outside the office, and she told me that she was going to Dacca as her place was beside her husband. I returned to Aurora and asked him if he was taking his wife with him. He replied in the affirmative. I said it was risky taking her there, to which he replied that it would be my responsibility to ensure her safety! I proceeded to Dacca accompanied by a staff officer. I took my draft of the Instrument of Surrender, which was yet to be confirmed by Army HQ. I changed helicopters at Jessore to save refuelling time. An officer ran up to me handing over a signal message from Army HQ. I expected that the message would confirm the draft I was carrying with me. It read: ‘Government of India has approved of General Jacob having lunch with Gen. Niazi.’ I proceeded on to Dacca. On landing at Dacca, I was met by the representatives of the UN, Marc Henry, Kelly, and others. They told me that they were accompanying me to take over the government and to arrange the withdrawal of the Pakistan military, paramilitary, and Pakistani civilians. I thanked them but declined their offer. Fighting was going on in Dacca between the Mukti Bahini and the Pakistan Army. The Pakistanis had sent me a staff car. The chief of staff of Pakistan’s Eastern Command accompanied me in the car to the headquarters of Eastern Command. We had barely proceeded a few hundred yards when a group of freedom fighters blocking the road fired at the car. I jumped out exclaiming ‘Indian Army’. Seeing my olive green Indian Army uniform they stopped firing but wanted to kill the Pakistani chief of staff. I reasoned with them, trying to persuade them to allow us to proceed. They reluctantly agreed. Meanwhile the press caught up with us. The Time Magazine correspondent reported that I had threatened to ‘shoot you fellows’. I was unarmed! After a few minutes we were allowed to proceed. I entered Niazi’s office. Present there were the senior most Pakistani army, navy, and air force officers, as also some other senior military officers. I was shocked to see Maj. Gen. Nagra seated on the sofa with his arm around Niazi engaged in cracking bawdy jokes in Punjabi. Siddiq Salik in his book Witness to Surrender(1977) wrote that the jokes were unprintable! We had moved Nagra just a few days earlier to replace Maj. Gen. Gurbax Singh, who was in command of the force that was moving to capture Dacca, but was wounded. Nagra had known Niazi from before when he was posted as military advisor to our High Commission in Islamabad. The ceasefire had taken effect at 1700 hours on 15 December. On the morning of 16 December, Nagra, who was some 30 miles outside Dacca with elements of 95 Mountain Brigade and 2 Para, well after the ceasefire went into force, sent a message to Niazi to send his representative. Niazi was at a loss to understand this message as he was expecting me. Nagra, flying a white flag, was escorted to Niazi’s headquarters. I saw the three jeeps with white flags parked outside. I called Nagra outside, gave him a sharp dressing down for disgraceful conduct unbecoming of a general officer. I told him to send some troops into Dacca, to the airfield and Intercontinental Hotel to protect the officials there. I also instructed him to arrange a table and two chairs at the Race Course for signature of The Instrument of Surrender, as also to provide a detachment for a joint guard of honour. I told him to leave behind a jeep for me. Nagra’s later conduct was questionable. He hijacked Maj. Gen. Rao Farman Ali’s new Mercedes and drove off with it to his former HQ jn Assam. He was ordered to hand it over to command HQ. where it was taken on charge and given a registration number by Army HQ. There were several other allegations against the general. Aurora declined to recommend him for any decoration and wanted to institute disciplinary proceedings against him. He however reconsidered the matter and decided not to. I re-entered the building. The draft Instrument of Surrender was read out. Niazi, with tears rolling down his cheeks, said: ‘Who said I am surrendering? You have only come to discuss a ceasefire and withdrawal as proposed by me.’ The service chiefs present also voiced their objections. Rao Farman Ali objected to surrendering to a ‘Joint Command’. Time was running out so I called Niazi aside. I told him that if he did not surrender I could not take responsibility for the safety of their families and ethnic minorities but if he did I would ensure their protection. I asked him to reconsider, again reminding him that if he did not surrender I would not be responsible for the safety of their families. I then added that I would give him 30 minutes to reconsider and if he did not I would order the resumption of hostilities and the bombing of Dacca. I then walked out to be met by the press. I was extremely worried. Niazi had 26,400 troops in Dacca, we had about 3,000 some 30 miles out. I was in a quandary as what to do in the event of his refusing. Aurora and his entourage were expected to land in an hour or two and the ceasefire was to expire shortly. I had nothing in hand. The Pakistan Commission of Enquiry report later stated ‘there was Gen. Jacob pacing outside, calmly puffing his pipe’. Far from it, I was extremely worried and tense. I spoke to the Pakistani sentry asking him about his family. He burst into tears saying that I as an Indian officer was talking to him whilst his own officers did not. After 30 minutes I walked into the office to be met by a deathly silence, my draft surrender document lying on the table. I asked Niazi if he accepted this document, to which he did not reply. I repeated the enquiry thrice. He still did not respond. I then picked up the document, holding it high, and said ‘I take it as accepted’. Tears rolled down Niazi’s cheeks, there were glares from those present. I called Niazi aside and then told him that I had arranged for the signing to take place at the Race Course in public. He objected strongly. I then told him that he would have to surrender his sword. He said that he did not have a sword but would surrender his revolver. I then told him he would have to provide a guard of honour. My thoughts went back to 1945 just after the Japanese surrender. When I landed in Sumatra, the Japanese provided me with a guard of honour. Niazi said there was no one to command it. I pointed to his ADC and said that he should command it. I permitted them to retain their weapons for their protection until such time as we could disarm them. I then discussed with his chief of staff other modalities regarding the surrender of other garrisons and troops. I tried to get through on the wireless to Aurora who could not be contacted. Apparently he had gone to Agartala to pick up Gen. Sagat Singh. We then moved to the Mess for lunch. Gavin Young of the Observer was standing outside and requested if he could have lunch. We moved to the dining room. I was taken aback to see the tables properly set and loaded with silver trophies. I did not feel like eating and moved to one side. Gavin Young did a two-page piece for his paper the Observer, ‘The Surrender Lunch’. At around 1560 Hours, I asked Niazi to accompany me to the airport. As Nagra had not left a jeep for me, I sat with Niazi in his staff car. The Mukti Bahini fighters jumped on the car and it was with some difficulty that we reached the airport. Fortunately, en route we stopped a jeep with two of our paratroopers who were sightseeing. I asked them to follow us. Nagra had not sent any troops to the airfield. I sent my staff officer to go and see if he could get some troops, some of whom should be entering the city. A little while later a truck loaded with armed Mukti Bahini arrived at the airfield. A man wearing our olive green uniform, wearing the badges of rank of a major general approached us, followed by two armed men. I placed him as ‘Tiger’ Siddiqui and sensed trouble. Siddiqui, who had some 20,000 fighters, did not fire a shot to halt the Pakistanis retreating through Tangail and did not move with us to Dacca. I felt that he had come to kill Niazi. I had to ensure that Niazi lived to sign the Instrument of Surrender. I told the two paratroopers to cover Niazi and point their rifles at Siddiqui. I politely asked Siddiqui to leave the airfield. He did not respond. I repeated this request. He still did not respond. I then shouted to him to get his truckload of fighters off the airfield, and heaved a sigh of relief when they left. A few days later Siddiqui called the international media with their camera crews to witness the public bayoneting of people he called traitors. These pictures were later widely circulated. Around 1630 hours Aurora and his entourage arrived in a fleet of five M14 and four Allouette helicopters. Aurora was accompanied by his wife and the navy and air force chiefs. Lt Gen. Sagat Singh and some of his divisional commanders also alighted, as did Wing Commander Khondker. Osmani, unfortunately was not there; the helicopter in which he had been travelling having been shot at and damaged. I had planned to travel in the last car with Aurora and Niazi, but Aurora asked me to make way for his wife, who then took her place by her husband’s side. The ADC, who was carrying the papers to be signed and I had to hitch our way on a truck to the Race Course. Though there was very little time for any preparations, the ceremony went off reasonably well. After inspecting the guard of honour, Aurora and Niazi sat at the table and signed the Instrument of Surrender. I glanced at the documents and was aghast to see the heading which read ‘Instrument of Surrender—to be signed at 1631 1ST [Indian Standard Time]’. I looked at my watch, which showed that the time was 1655 hours. The documents they brought to be signed had to be re-signed by both in Calcutta some two weeks later! Niazi removed his epaulette, took out his revolver and handed it to Aurora; tears rolled down his cheeks. It was getting dark. The crowd at the Race Course began shouting and there were threats to lynch Niazi; anti-Pakistani slogans and abuses resounded. They then moved towards Niazi. The senior officers present formed a cordon around him and whisked him off in one of our jeeps. I briefed Lt Gen. Sagat Singh regarding the disarming of the Pakistanis and other modalities. We then returned to the airfield. Rear Admiral Shariff, whom I had given permission to meet our naval commander, met Vice Admiral Krishnan. Krishnan asked Shariff to hand over his pistol to him, which he did. We then took off for Agartala and thence to Calcutta. I wondered why 1631 hours (4.31 p.m.) was the time specified for signature of the Instrument of Surrender. Parliament was in session so perhaps Manekshaw had told Indira Gandhi that it would be signed at that time. Members were anxious to know what was happening. According to Siddhartha Shankar Ray, the chief minister of West Bengal, who was present in parliament that day, members were anxious to know about the progress of negotiations. The minister of defence repeatedly stated that Gen. Jacob was having lunch. It was most ironic that amidst all these tumultuous events, Jacob would be remembered by posterity for enjoying a very long and leisurely lunch! Sometime later, when I examined the revolver that Niazi had surrendered, I realized that it could not have been Niazi’s. The barrel was choked with muck and had not been cleaned for some considerable time, the lanyard was frayed and dirty. This could not have been the personal weapon of a commanding general. Niazi had probably taken it from one of the military policemen and surrendered it as his personal weapon. I could not help feeling that in a small way Niazi had got some of his own back. The military operations have been described as a ‘lightning campaign and is studied in military institutions in many countries. In the words of a later Pakistani document of the war with the National Defence College of Pakistan: The Indians planned and executed their offensive against East Pakistan in a textbook manner. It was a classic example of thorough planning, minute coordination, and bold execution. The credit clearly goes to General Jacob’s meticulous preparations in the Indian Eastern Command and its implementation by his corps commanders. Niazi had proposed a ceasefire under UN auspices, withdrawal under the UN, hand over of the government to the UN, and no reprisals. There was no mention of India in his ceasefire proposal. On 16 December he had 26,400 troops in Dacca, we some 3000 outside. The UN Security Council was in session debating a Polish Resolution. He could have fought on for at least two more weeks, and had he fought on for even one more day, the UN Security Council would have ordered a withdrawal. Some Pakistanis say that Niazi’s nerve broke and that I bluffed him into surrendering. I negotiated the surrender on my unconfirmed draft document that I had sent to Delhi. It would perhaps be pertinent to quote the Pakistan Government’s Hamoodur Rehman Commission of Enquiry Report: ‘General Niazi, when you had 26,400 troops in Dacca and the Indians a few thousand outside you could have fought on for at least two more weeks, with the UN Security Council in session. Had you fought on for even one more day the Indians would have had to go back, why then did you accept a shameful unconditional public surrender and provide a guard of honour commanded by your ADC?’ Niazi: ‘I was compelled to do so by Jacob who blackmailed me into surrendering …’ This he has repeated in his book The Betrayal of East Pakistan, published in 1988. Suppose I had failed in Dacca to convert the ceasefire under the UN as proposed by Niazi into an unconditional public surrender, the only one in history, we would have had to go back the next day. I did not fail and India became a regional superpower. The campaign was indeed a ‘very close run thing’. We were extremely lucky. The campaign, though studied by armies abroad, is not studied in much detail in India, nor have the lessons from it, particularly mobility and logistics, been given sufficient weightage. A ceasefire was converted into a surrender and signed in the space of some four hours. The modalities for the ceremony were basic and were arranged with meagre resources. To quote the Duke of Wellington again after Waterloo: ‘It was a close run thing!’ The Pakistanis have no love for the Jews. The Pakistanis are well aware that I am a Jew. It is therefore surprising that in their study at the Pakistan National Defence College on the 1971 war in East Pakistan, they give credit for the Indian victory clearly to ‘Maj. Gen. Jacob’. In India, however, my contribution to the ‘textbook’ campaign and in converting a ceasefire into an unconditional public surrender, the only one in history, is not widely known. I would like to reiterate that when my book Surrender at Dacca: Birth of a Nation was published in 1997, I personally gave Manekshaw and Aurora copies of it at a time when they were both fit and active; neither issued any rejoinder. The book has been translated into Chinese, Thai, Persian, Arabic, Bengali, and Hebrew.
Health Insurance and its importance
Health Insurance and its importance
Please Spare few minutes of your valuable time and Read… Thanks….
It is rightly said, “Health is Wealth”. The true wealth is health because if we lose good health, no money can give us pleasure. Most of the things in life can be bought by money except good health that is something to be taken care of very cautiously.
Good health is very important and it is the duty of the every individual to look after it. It is important to remember that life is full of uncertainties and you do not know what will happen in the next few seconds. Hence it is important to make arrangements so that you can take care of yourself and your immediate family members even if some misfortune falls upon you.
Medical costs are rising at a very rapid pace. When you are admitted in a hospital there are various cost involved such as doctors visiting fees, expensive medicines, diagnostic tests etc. All these charges add to your hospitalization charges. Paying for these expenses will drain your savings.
We at Star Health Insurance cater to all segments of the people in covering their health insurance needs:
- Red carpet Insurance for Senior Citizens- Age at Entry between 60-75 Years. No Medical Check up is required. Pre-Existing diseases allowed. Life Long renewals guaranteed. Highest Sum Insurance of Rs.10 lakhs offered. Cashless facilities.
- Comprehensive-Individual/ Family Floater- for Couple with maximum 3 children. No Cap on Room Rent/ Medical Expenses. Non Medical Expenses are also covered. In built Personal Accident Cover/ In Built Maternity benefits for 2 children. New Born Baby Cover. Dental/ Ophthalmic cover. Bariatric Surgery cover/ Free Medical check up/ 100% Bonus/ 100% Auto Sum Restorations/ Highest number of Day care procedure covered/ High Sum Insurance up to RS.25 lakhs.
- Diabetes Safe Insurance– Exclusive Policy for people who suffer from Type I/II diabetes. Day one cover offered for diabetes related complications/ all other hospitalizations also covered/ 100% auto Sum restoration benefits/ Plan available with/without medical check up/ Dialysis/ Artificial limb expenses covered/ Medical Bills/ Medical Check-up covered.
- Heart Cover- Exclusively for people who underwent heart by-pass surgery/ Angioplasty/Any other Heart diseases treatment underwent during the past 7 years can be taken up for Medical Cover. In This policy non surgical Medical management expenses are also covered.
- Over Seas Travel/ Health Insurance- For those who travel and need the cover.
- Personal Accident cover- Highest Cover of Rs.7 crore offered. Individual/ Family can be covered. Hospitalization expenses covered/ Weekly Compensation benefitsoffered. Permanent/partial disability benefits offered/ Treatment for hospital expenses are also covered.
Choose Star Health and forget about Medical Expenses. Lead a peaceful life. Choosing a health insurance is not an expense but an Asset.
Please call/ Mail/Whatsapp for your health care cover and we assist you with the best possible solutions.
IT Benefits under section 80(D) can be availed up to RS.55,000/-
Thanks and Regards,
SHRIRAM T K L
MANAGER-SALES,
STAR HEALTH AND ALLIED INSURANCE CO LTD
KODAMBAKKAM BRANCH-CHENNAI REGION
MOBILE/WHATSAPP: +919841009772
Mail: shriram.tkl@starhealth.in
எம் என் ராய், அம்பேத்கர், பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசு
எம். என். ராய்… இவரைப் பற்றி விக்கிபீடியாவில் இப்படி தான் மேற்கோள் காட்டப்பட்டு இருக்கும். இவர் பெயரில் இன்றளவும் எம் என் ராய் மெமோரியல் லெக்சர் என்கிற நிகழ்ச்சி ஏற்பாடு செய்யப்பட்டு பெரிய பெரிய அரசியல் தலைவர்கள், அறிவு ஜீவிகள் பலவகையான விஷயங்களை பேசுவர். ஆனால் இவர் சுதந்திரத்திற்காக ஏதோ பயங்கரமாக பாடுபட்டார் என்று சொல்வதெல்லாம் எந்த அளவில் உண்மை என்று தெரியவில்லை. இன்னும் சொல்லப்போனால் பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசாங்கத்தின் சம்பள பட்டுவாடா கணக்கில் இவர் மற்றும் அம்பேத்கார் இருந்திருக்கின்றனர். அதுவும் அந்தக் காலத்தில் மாதம் ரூ 13000/- (இன்றைய தேதியில் பார்த்தால் பல இலட்சத்திற்கும் மேல் ) பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசு இவர் தலைமை ஏற்ற தொழில் சங்கத்திற்கு தொடர்ந்து அளித்து வந்திருக்கிறது! ஆனால் இந்த பணம் இவரது தனிப்பட்ட செயல்பாட்டிற்கு மட்டுமே பயன்பட்டு வந்திருக்கிறதே அன்றி மற்ற எந்தவொரு தொழிலாளருக்கும் பயன்பெறவே இல்லை. இன்னும் சொல்லப் போனால் இது போன்ற ஒரு பணம் மாதா மாதம் பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசு கொடுக்கிறது என்பதே உறுப்பினர்களுக்கு தெரியவில்லை. ஆனால் அம்பேத்காருக்கு இவை அனைத்தும் தெரியும். தெரிந்தும் வாய் மூடி மௌனியாக இந்த கள்ளத்தனத்திற்கு துணை போய் இருக்கிறார்.. இது சம்பந்தமான விவாதங்களில் அம்பேத்கார் காங்கிரஸ் கட்சியின் அரசு உறுப்பினர்கள் கேட்ட கேள்விகளுக்கு என்ன மாதிரியான பதிலை அளித்தார் என்பது பற்றி அருண் ஷோரி அவர்கள் எழுதிய Worshipping False Gods என்கிற புத்தகம் படித்தால் தெரியும்.. முதலில் விக்கிபீடியா மேற்கோள் காட்டும் பதிவு இதோ:-
மனபேந்திர நாத் ராய் அல்லது எம். என். ராய் (M. N. Roy, 21 மார்ச்சு 1887 – 26 ஜனவரி 1954) இந்தியா விடுதலை அடைய புரட்சிச் செயல்களில் ஈடுபட்டவர். ஒரு கம்யூனிஸ்ட்டு, போராளி, சிந்தனையாளர், நாத்திகர் என்று இவர் போற்றப்படுகிறார்.
இவரது இயற்பெயர் நரேந்திர நாத் பட்டாச்சாரியா. தந்தை ஒரு புரோகிதர்.ராய் மேற்கு வங்கத்தில் ஆர்பிலியா என்னும் ஊரில் பிறந்தார். அவருடைய பள்ளிப்படிப்பு ஆர்பிலியாவில் தொடங்கியது. வங்கத்தொழில் கழகத்தில் பொறியியலும் வேதியலும் கற்றார். சொந்தமுயற்சியில் தொடர்ந்து படித்து தம் அறிவைப் பெருக்கிக்கொண்டார். 19ஆம் நூற்றாண்டின் இறுதியில் இந்தியத்தேசிய உணர்ச்சி எங்கும் பரவத் தொடங்கியது. பக்கிம் சந்திர சாட்டர்சி, விவேகானந்தர் ஆகியோரின் எழுத்துகளைப் படித்து ராய் உணர்வு பெற்றார். பிரித்தானிய அரசுக்கு எதிராகப் போராடி இந்தியா விடுதலை பெறவேண்டும் என்று விரும்பினார். ஆயுதப்புரட்சி மூலம் மாற்றம் காணலாம் என்று நம்பினார்.
மெக்சிக்கோவிலும் இந்தியாவிலும் பொதுவுடைமைக் கட்சியைத் தொடங்கினார். தொழிலாளர் பற்றிய சட்டங்களைப் படித்து அவற்றில் ஆழ்ந்த அறிவு பெற்றார்.மெக்சிக்கோவிலிருந்து உருசியாவுக்குச் சென்றார். அங்கு லெனின், டிராட்ச்கி, ஸ்டாலின் ஆகியோரின் நட்பைப் பெற்றார். 1923இல் கம்யூனிஸ்டுக் கொள்கைத் திட்டம் வகுக்கப்பட்டது. இக்கொள்கைத் திட்டத்தில் எம். என். ராயின் கருத்துக்களும் விவாதிக்கப்பட்டன. பின்னர் உஸ்பெகிஸ்தான், சீனா ஆகிய நாடுகளுக்கும் சென்று பொதுவுடைமைக் கருத்துகளைப் பரப்பினார்.
1930 திசம்பரில் இந்தியாவுக்குத் திரும்பினார். ஜவகர்லால் நேரு, சுபாஸ் சந்திர போஸ் ஆகியோரைச் சந்தித்துப் பேசினார். இந்தியாவில் காங்கிரசுக் கட்சியில் சேர விரும்பினார். இருப்பினும் காந்தியடிகளின் தலைமையை அவர் விரும்பவில்லை. பம்பாயில் கைதாகிச் சிறைக்குச் சென்றார். இண்டிபெண்டெண்ட் இந்தியா என்னும் இதழை நடத்தினார். ஏஐடியூசி என்னும் தொழிற் சங்கத்திற்கு புத்துயிர் கொடுத்துத் தொடங்கி வைத்தார்.
ஆனால் பிற்காலத்தில் முதலாளிய சனநாயகத்தையும் கம்யூனீசத்தையும் வெறுத்து ஒதுங்கினார். புரட்சிகர மனிதநேயம் என்ற கொள்கைக்காக தம் இறுதிக் காலத்தில் பாடுபட்டார். 1954இல் டேராடூனில் இறந்தார்.
இப்படி இவரைப் பற்றி எழுதியிருக்கின்றனர். இனி இவர் பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசிடம் பணம் பெற்ற விவகாரம் சம்பந்தப்பட்ட விவாதங்களை பார்க்கலாம்..
But another thing happened soon enough. From the very beginning members had been demanding to know whether the money was being paid to MN. Roy personally for him to dispose of as he saw fit or to the Federation for it to disburse according to some rules. Ambedkar had all along insisted that it was being paid to’ the Federation and not to any individual. But the president of the Federation, Jamnadas Mehta, who was also a member of the Legislative Assembly, issued a public statement that ’it is the blackest lie that the Federation is receiving Rs. 13,000 per month from the government.’ ’Who is telling the truth, government or the president of the Federation?’ demanded member‘after member. ’It is not for me to reconcile the two statements,’ said Ambedkar While maintaining again that ’from the very beginning the arrangement has been with the Indian Federation of Labour and not with any individual.’
’Is the Honourable member correct or not in having made the statement?’ pressed a member.
‘It is not for me to answer that question,’ said Ambedkar,
‘May I know who is telling this blackest lie, either the Federation or the Government of India?’ asked another member.
’My Honourable friend is free to draw any conclusions that he likes,’ replied Ambedkar.
The next day Ambedkar had to acknowledge another embarrassing fact: ’No other labour association has received financial assistance from Government for this purpose,’ he said in reply to a written question. Letters had been addressed to both the All-India Trade Union Congress and the Indian Federation of Labour. ’In their reply the All India Trade Union Congress did not ask for any assistance,’ said Ambedkar.
Members pressed Ambedkar for answers on the floorof the Assembly again on 7 November, and yet again on 20 November 1944. He continued to stonewall. In December the issue exploded further. By now the president of the Indian Labour Federation, Jamnadas Mehta, MLA, had gone much further. In a statement to United Press he disclosed that he had official correspondence ’showing that the name of the Labour Federation has been used behind the back, over the head and without the knowledge of either its President or its Executive Council and further that Rs. 13,000 per month were obtained by Mr. Roy for himself to be used as he liked.’
‘Accordingly, on 9 Febmary 1945 the members questioned Ambedkar again on the matter in the Assembly. ’Have you seen this statement?’ they asked. ’What have you to say now?’ they asked.
‘I have nothing to add to the reply I had given,’ Said Ambedkar.
’But I want the Honourable member to reply to my questions,’ Lalchand N avalrai, who had been most active in the matter, said, adding, ’I know that the Honourable member is feeling shy over this question because if he makes a statement it would go against his own answers. I submit that the honourable member should reply to my questions; otherwise mere will be an adjournment motion on the subject.’
’It is given to the Federation,’ Ambedkar said.
’The Honourable member said the other day that audited Copies of accounts will be placed on the table of the House,’ another member reminded Ambedkar, and asked, ’Has he done so?’
’They have not been received as yet,’ said Ambedkar about a matter which, as we have seen, had been under discussion for months and months:
’Has the Honourable member seen details of this account?’ a member asked of Ambedkar-for Ambedkar had been giving certificates in the House to the effect that the money had been properly spent.
’I understand that they are seen by a special officer who has been appointed by government in this behalf,’ said Ambedkar.
As he still kept saying that the money had been given not to Roy personally but to the Federation and that it had been. properly spent, the then president of the Federation, Jamnadas Mehta, who was present in the House, got up and declared, ’No money has been received, by the Federation from‘the government. The name of the Federation hasbeen used [for receiving the money] behind the back, over the head and without the knowledge of either its Executive Committee or its president. The government have been cheated. It is without the knowledge of the Federation.’
‘It is not my information,’ is all Ambedkar said by way of reply to this specific disclosure on the floor of the House by none other than the president of the Federation.
‘Government have been cheated,’ Jamnadas Metals said again.
Lalchand Navalrai now took over: ’Will the Governmeu take any action now that the honourable member has been told that government has been cheated?’ he asked Amhedkar.
‘Government does not believe it has been cheated,’ replied Ambedkar.
There were further exchanges in the Assembly on 21st February 1945. As Ambedkar had been insisting that the money had been paid not to Roy but to the Federation, members asked Ambedkar if the money had been credited to the account of the organization?
’I have no knowledge,’ he said. ’It is not my business to check the accounts of any organization,’ he said.
’You had said the accounts have been audited. Has the auditor’s report been received?’ a member asked. ’My Honourable friend must put down a specific question on that _ point,’ Ambedkar replied.
’In view of the fact that the Public Accounts Committee for 1942-43 specifically said that no accounts are kept for this money given to Mr Roy,’ asked T.S. Avinashlingam Chettiar, ’may I know if the money was given to Mr Roy in his personal name and whether audits were made and what conclusion the auditors came to as to whether the amounts were credited to the organization?’
’I cannot say to whom the money was paid before the new arrangement was made,’ replied Ambedkar. ’After the new arrangement was made the money is paid to the person who is known as secretary.’
‘Will you give the name of the gentleman? he was asked. \ ‘I shall require notice,’ said Ambedkar. That was natural, for, after all that he had been saying, Ambedkar would have been loath to acknowledge that ’the secretary’ of the Federation was none other than the same M.N. Roy!
’In View of the fact that the subsidy to the Labour Federation is not approved by this House, is it the intention of government to discontinue it?’ a member asked.
’I do not Wish to anticipate the decision,’ replied Ambedkar.’
On 12 April 1945, the House was seized of the matter again. By then M.N. Roy and Jamnadas Mehta had both published their versions of the affair in booklets.
’Have you seen these contradictory accounts?’ Ambedkar was asked. ’Will you get the books and read them?’ ’I do not propose to spend my money on purchasing them,’Arnbedkar declared. ’If they are sent to me I will read them.’
’If I send the books which I have got with me, will the Honourable member read them?’ Lalchand Navalrai pressed.
’If I find time, I will,’ said Ambedkar.
Among the three written questions which had occasioned this discussion the second question was: ’Will government please lay a statement of accounts showing how the amount was spent?’
இப்படி போகிறது சம்பாஷனை.. ஆனால் கடைசி வரை அம்பேத்கார் எம் என் ராயின் பணப்பரிவர்த்தனை பற்றி வாயே திறக்கவில்லை. பூசி மொழுகி பதில் சொல்லியிருக்கிறார்.. இதில் இன்னொரு விஷயத்தையும் அருண் ஷோரி குறிப்பிடுகிறார். 13000/- ரூ மாதம் என்பது ஒரு பகுதி மட்டுமே.. இன்னொரு 13000/ ரூபாயும் வேறு சில வகைகளில் பிரிட்டிஷ் அரசாங்கம் இவருக்கு கொடுத்து இருக்கிறது. அதாவது மாதம் 26000 ரூபாய்..1940 ல் இந்த பணம் இன்றைய தேதியில் எத்தனை லட்சத்திற்கு சமம்… ?
ஆனால் இவை எதுவும் பொது மக்களின் பார்வைக்கு வரவே இல்லை. தெரியவும் தெரியாது. அந்த தைரியம் தான் கம்யூனிஸ்ட்களின் வளர்ச்சி. கூசாமல் சாவர்க்கரையும் இன்னபிற ஹிந்து தலைவர்களையும் சுதந்திரத்திற்காக என்ன செய்தனர் என்று கேட்க முடிகிறது.
Amish Is On A Mission To Make Tomorrow’s India Worthy Of Its Ancestors
Perhaps no other writer, may be an Ashok Banker, or to a certain extent Chetan Baghath has penetrated deep into Indian English writing and story telling style and won the hearts of millions as that of Amish Tripathi. The leagues of Amitav Ghosh are startlingly different and they speak the language of European/ western thinking but Amish Tripathi is rooted to Indic myths and brings out the best with his unique style of writing. Please read this whole article and you will understand that how deeply he is committed to that.
To slot Amish as a writer of mythological thrillers is possibly the worst literary mistake you could make
GST Is Modi’s Baby: It Couldn’t Have Happened Without Him; Both Credit And Blame Will Go To Him
Warts and all, GST is the one transformative change from which no one can deny Narendra Modi credit.
Gandhiji on Cow Protection- Various Articles..
Cow-Protection
Article: 1-
Cow-protection is an article of faith in Hinduism. Apart from its religious sanctity, it is an ennobling creed. But we, Hindus, have today little regard for the cow and her progeny. In no country in the world are cattle so ill-fed and ill-kept as in India. In beef-eating England it would be diilicult to find cattle with bones sticking out of their flesh. Most of our pinjrapoles are ill-managed and ill~kept. Instead of being a real blessing to the animal world, they are perhaps simply receivingdepots for dying animals. We say nothing to the English in India for whose sake hundreds of cows are slaughtered daily. Our rajas do not hesitate to provide beef to their English guests. Our pretection of the cow, therefore, extends to‘ rescuing her from Mussul~ man hands. This reverse method of cow protection has led to endless feuds and bad blood between Hindus and Mussulmans. It has probably caused greater slaughter of cows than otherwise would have been the case if we had begun the propaganda in the right order. We should have commenced, as we ought now to commence, with ourselves and cover the land with useful propaganda leading to kindness in the treatment of cattle and scientific knowledge in the management of cattle farms, dairies and pinjrapoles. We should devote our attention to propaganda among Englishmen in the shape of inducing them voluntarily to abandon beef, or if they will not do so, at least be satisfied with imported beef. We should secure prohibition of export of cattle from India and we should adopt means of increasing and purifying our milk supply. I have not a shadow of doubt that if we proceed along these sane lines, we would secure voluntary Mussulman support, and when we have ceased to compel them to stop killing cows on their festival days, we would find that they have no occasion for insisting on killing them .Any show of force on our part must lead to retaliation and exacerbation of feeling. We may not make Mussula mans or anybody respect our feelings religious or Other wise by force. We can really do so only by excite ing their fellow-feeling.
Hence it is that I have declined, and I am sure quite wisely, to enter into any bargain on the khilafat question. I consider myself to be among the staunchest of Hindus. I am as eager to save the cow from the Mussulman’s knife as any Hindu. But on that very account I refuse to make my support of the Mussulman claim on the khilafat conditional upon his saving the cow. The Mussulman is my neighbour. He is in distress. His grievance is legitimate and it is my bounden duty to help him to secure redress by every legitimate means in my‘ power, even to the extent of losing my life and property. That is the way I can win permanent friendship with Mussulmans. I refuse to suspect human nature. It will,.is bound to, respond to any noble and friendly action. The nobility of thehelp will be ren. dered nugatory if it was rendered conditionally. That the result will be the saving of the cow is a certainty. But should it turn out to be otherwise, my view will not be affected in any manner whatsoever. The test of friendship is a spirit of love and sacrihce independent of expectation of any return.
But one observes a spirit of impatience on the part of the Hindus. In our eagerness to protect the cow we seek to legislate through municipalities and get the resolutions passed by Mussulman meetings. I would urge my Hindu countrymen to be patient. Our Mussut4 man countrymen are themselves doing most hand~ somely in the matter. I remind the readers of Maulana Abdul Bari’s declaration that he could not take any proferred aid unless he, a devout Mussulman, could see his way clear to asking his followers to protect the cow. He has been as good as his word. He has been unremittingly attempting to create a favourable atmosphere for receiving the doctrine of cow protection on humanitarian and utilitarian grounds. Hakimjee Ajmalkhan as President of the‘ Muslim League last year carried his resolution of abstention from cow-killing on festival days in the teeth of Opposition members. The Ali Brothers have stopped beef-eating in their household. We must feel deeply grateful to those noble-hearted Mussulmans for their unsolicited response. We must let them solve the difficult problem in their own way. My advice to my Hindu brethren is,‘ “simply help the Mussulmans in their sorrow in a generous and self-sacrificing spirit without counting the cost and you will automatically save the cow.” Islam is a noble faith. Trust it and its followers. We must hold it a crime for any Hindu to talk to them about cow protection or any other help in our religious matters whilst the khilafat struggle is going on.
Article-2:-
The cause of cow-protection is very dear to me. If some one were to ask me what the most important outward manifestation of Hinduism was, I would suggest that it was the idea of cow-protection. It has been clear to me for many years past that we have forsaken this duty. I have seen no country in the world where the progeny of the cow is so ill fed and ill cared {of as in lndia. We do not find anywhere el e uch large numbers of cattle with bones sticking out of their fle as we do in India. in England the people actu lly e t beer. but I did not see in that country cattle which were ill-fed and ill-kept.
We are weak as our cattle are. It is not surprising to find three crores dying of hunger where the cattle are in similar plight.
Look at the condition of our pinjrapoles. l have respect for the kindness of the managers, but I have very little respect of their capacity for managing things. I do not believe that the pinjrapoles protect cows and their progeny. They should not be places where ill-fed and ill-kept cattle may be looked after and allowed to die peacefully. I would expect to see in them ideal cows and bulls. Pinjrapoles should be located, not in the heart of cities but in big fields and they should bring, instead of consuming, plenty of money.
How do the Hindus look after the cattle in the country? Are they not Hindus who goad them with share pened nails on sticks, who put unbearable loads on them, keep them without enough fodder and make them work more than they can?
It is my firm conviction that the Hindus’ first duty is to put their own house in order. I would, if I could and had necessary time at my disposal, engage the various cow-protection bodies in reforming the pinjrapoles, in imparting to the people scientilic knowledge of cattle-breeding, in teaching cruel Hindus to have compassion for their cattle and in making available pure milk to the poorest child and to the sick. And I would first ask the Hindus to take charge of the gigantic task of organizing such bodies. And then i would request the Englishmen to give up beef eating. The princes forget, when entertaining English guests, the duty (of cow-protection) which is especially theirs and do not hesitate to order beef for them; I would request them to save themselves from this violation of their dharma, I would shame them into doing so.
Only after I have done this may I be entitled to ask my Muslim friends to stop cow-slaughter. Our duty, thus, is clear enough, but we have taken up the last thing first. We seem to think that all we need to do by way of cow-protection is to save cows from the hands of Muslims, either with their goodwill or with force. As a result, the hostility between Hindus and Muslims has increased, a cause for discord has been created and the effort (to save cows in this manner) has led to their slaughter in increased numbers, for the thing became a point of honour with the Muslims. Our supreme duty is to lay down our lives for saving the cow.
Today, however, we have an invaluable opportunity and I have embraced it. Every Hindu can do the same thing and easily ensure the protection of cows. A great misfortune has befallen the Muslims, their reli‘ gion has been slighted. At such a time, we should help them unconditionally, without asking for anything in return. It is our duty as neighbours to do this. The man who does his duty gets his reward, whether he hopes for it or not. By doing our duty to the Muslims. we challenge their nobility. Friendship which asks for a reward is no friendship, it is bargaining. If, at this juncture, we give up all thought of bargaining and help the Muslims, we shall ensure (cow) protection of their own freewill.
Some persons argue that in this matter Muslims cannot be trusted. l, for one, believe in human nature; I have faith in Islam. It is a divine law that nobility mll be answered by nobility. It is only when our motiyes are mixed that we see contrary results. Even today, Muslims on their own have been doing much. Maulana Abdul Bari accepted my help only when he could find in his religion sanction for refraining from killing cows. Hakim Ajmal Khan is working hard for their protection. The Ali Brothers have banished beef from their homes altogether.
Let us not, by our suspicions or our impatience, endanger the change which is taking place.
I observe at some places a movement for legislation to ban cow-slaughter. Everywhere I hear people suggesting that we make conditions with Muslims. In both these. I see nothing but harm. Orthodox Hindus have only one thing to do at present and that is, to discharge, quietly, the duty, which is morally theirs, of helping Muslims. That is the way to ensure complete protection of the religion and honour of either.
…..continued…
Why this focus on ’rapes in India’ by world media?
Talwar’s talwar against leprosy, TB and cancer Vaccination is a time tested method, but what if, as in the case of leprosy, the pathogen cannot easily be cultured in the lab?
SPEAKING OF SCIENCE D.Balasubramanian
There are two ways for the body to tackle infectious diseases – curing and prevention. Curing involves the use of drugs and other associated treatment modes. Prevention aims at stopping the entry and action of the infecting germ. Vaccination is a time-tested method of preventing germborne diseases. It involves allowing the body to recognise the presence of the cells and molecules of the invader (also called pathogen) and generate countermolecules that capture and ‘karate chop’ it into submission and removal. Indeed, this strategy is stored and maintained in our body such that when the same pathogen strikes again (say in an epidemic), our defence is ready to strike and overcome it. The body has learnt to be immune to the invader. Our immune system is quite versatile and geared to defend itself, using proteins called immunoglobulins (also called antibodies) against a large variety of pathogens. Vaccination involves injecting into the body a small amount of ‘sham’ (dead, i.e., usually heat-killed or highly disabled) pathogen, and allowing the body to generate the antibodies specific against the injected pathogen. This of course requires that we isolate and grow (‘culture’) the pathogen in the lab in order to inject it into the body. Happily enough, with many of the common infective diseases (e. g., measles, smallpox, polio, cholera, diarrhoea, hepatitis), this has been done, and we have successful vaccines against them. What if the disease pathogen is not easily cultured in the lab? One such disease, which has been with us since antiquity, is leprosy. (The Mahabharata tells us that how Pratipa’s son Devapi could not ascend the throne of Hastinapur, since he had leprosy and instead retired to the forest for penance). Fortunately, most of us humans (about 99%) are able to resist infection by the leprosy-causing germ mycobacterium leprae, or M leprae. But the rest who succumb (majority of them in Asia and Africa), are shunned by society, have deformed limbs and prone to other infections, notably tuberculosis or TB. While drugs against leprosy exist, they are expensive, need repeated doses and not 100% effective. Vaccination would be the ideal solution. It was this problem of generating a leprosy vaccine that Professor Gursaran Pran Talwar at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) Delhi (a city 90 km southwest of Hastinapur) decided to address, way back in the early 1970s. But, the odds were very high indeed. M Leprae is not culturable; it simply does not grow in any medium. Hence to make a dead or attenuated pathogen for injection to generate antibodies was a challenge. In order to address this issue, Dr Talwar and his students combed through 16 different cultivable, atypical members of the mycobacterium family — distant relatives of M Leprae. Over the years, five of them appeared hopeful, and after almost two decades of work, one of them, termed mycobacterium w (simply called M w) appeared to fit the bill.
Doppelganger
Note that M w is not M leprae, but what the Germans call a Doppelganger (or a double, an imitator). It was cultivable, it induced the molecule lepromin just as M leprae does, and thus was fit to be tried as a vaccine candidate. When tried on leprosy patients in Kolkata and Delhi, Mw generated lepromin responses and was also found to be quite effective. Next, a detailed molecular and genetic analysis was carried out by Talwar and his students at the National Institute of Immunology (or NII, which Dr Talwar had founded, moving from AIIMS, in the early 1980s). Total characterisation of this microbe, and its genetic similarities to M leprae, and also to the TB pathogen M tuberculosis, were revealed by Syed Rahman, Seyed Hasnain and colleagues. It was further found that heat-killed M w can still boost immune responses against several pathogens. In honour of Dr. Talwar, who spearheaded the entire work, M w was renamed as mycobacterium indicus pranii, or simply as MIP. (The word indicus denotes India, while pranii comes from the middle name of Talwar and NII for the Institute). Encouraged by the above trials, andclearances from the Drug Controller General of India and the US Food and Drug Administration, Dr. Soumya Swaminathan of Indian Council of Medical Research has announced that this vaccine will now be tried on people who are in close contact with leprosy patients in Bihar, Gujarat and Tamilnadu, and has said that MIP has the potential to bring down new cases of leprosy by 60% in three years. We noted above that MIP shares some of its antigenic molecules with MTb. So, why not try it out as an anti-TB agent?
Doppelganger has more up its sleeve
They first infected one set of guineapigs with MTb and found that the animals had contacted the disease, as seen in their lungs and spleen. Next they first immunised another set of animals with MIP and then infected them with MTb. This reduced the pathology of the animals significantly. Encouraged by this, they next conducted an exploratory trial on hard-totreat TB patients in Ahmedabad to find that those injected with MIP along with drugs had better results than control ones. There thus appear some similarities between MIP injection and the classical BCG vaccination we all have gone through against TB. And most recently, Professor Dipankar Nandi of IISc Bengaluru has tried using MIP as an anti-cancer agent, since MIP appears to stimulate cells and molecules, such as IFN-gamma and IL-12, which play crucial riles in anti-tumour immunity. Now they have tried the combination of MIP along with the anti-cancer drug cyclophosphamide as a combination therapy with promising results (Podder et al, Clinical Cancer Drugs, 2016). The Talwar saga bears testimony towhat Louis Pasteur, a vaccine pioneer, once remarked: ‘where observation is concerned, chance favours the prepared mind’.
dbala@lvpei.org
The Sunday Hindu Special..
An indelible blot on urban governanceDespite a clutch of laws and strictures
Despite a clutch of laws and strictures from the highest court of the land, the practice ofemploying human labour to clean sewers continues to this day, claiming the lives of labourers and leaving their families in the lurch
S. Senthalir
As the scorching heat of the first month ofsummer baked the grubby streets of Cuddalore on March 20, three young men — two below 30 years and one in mid-30s — were called to clear a block in a manhole near Mohini Bridge in Thirupadiripuliyar. It was not yet 4 p.m. when Jayakumar (28), a resident of Kudikankuppam in the old town of Cuddalore district, took along Velu (26) from the same locality and Murugan (35) from Soriyankuppam, a small village in the southern tip of Bahour enclave of Puducherry,to remove the block. Unmarried and shouldering the responsibility of looking after his aged parents, Jayakumar worked as a supervisor in a private company in Chennai that had taken up the maintenance work on sub-contract from the Tamil Nadu Water Supply and Drainage Board for the 45 wards of the old and new town in the Cuddalore Municipality. Murugan engaged in odd jobs to sustain a family of four, while Velu, a conservancy worker in his locality, was living with his partially-blind widowed mother. When the three reached the manhole near Mohini Bridge, the surface of the road was too hot though it was evening. Velu got into the manhole first, followed by Murugan. When both of them did not surface, Jayaramwent in. Shortly thereafter, all the three died of asphyxiation. Following their death,protests erupted in Cuddalore with relatives and representatives of Social Awareness Society for Youth demanding that murder charges be pressed against government officials concerned and a case booked under the SC and ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act as two of the deceased were Dalits. Protesters also called for strict implementation of the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (MS Act, 2013) to identify and rehabilitate conservency workers.
Harsh reality
Tamil Nadu, which is considered to be one of the most urbanised States with its vast network of underground drainage and septic tanks, continues to witness a significant number of deaths of manual scavengers. Just five days before this incident, two conservancy workers died at Vijayawada in Andhra Pradesh and three men died of asphyxiation at Bengaluru on March 7. The names of these victims will now be added to a growing list of manual scavengers who died across the country since 2014 when the Supreme Court passed an order prohibiting manual scavenging. It is estimated that 1,500 conservancy workers have died since the Supreme Court order, and this figure does not account for the innumerable“manhole deaths” that have gone under-reported or unnoticed. Magsaysay Award winnerand national convener of Safai Karamchari Andolan Bezwada Wilson is on record terming the practice of manual scavenging a part of “the dirty Indian culture” rooted in the caste-based society. An inescapable fact in a deeply caste-driven country like India is that a majority of people engaged in manual scavenging belong to the Dalit community. While the ‘untouchable’ caste was engaged for menial jobs even before India was colonised, the work of manual scavenging was perhaps institutionalised during the British regime. Vidhya Ravindranathan, one of the few researchers to have studied the issue, brings in the culpability of the State in the sustenance of the practice. In her thesis, ‘Constructing the Scavenger: Caste and Labour in Colonial Madras 1860-1930,’ submitted to the JNU, she says: “Through limited municipal investments in night soil collection, the State (has) utilised untouchable labour to sustain the conservancy system.” Though the jury is out on the origins of this inhuman practice, the fact remains that it persists to this day despite being prohibited under a clutch of laws such as The Employment ofManual Scavenging and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993; the Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and their Rehabilitation Act, 2013 (MS Act, 2013) and despite a Supreme Court direction in 2014 to all the States to abolish manual scavenging and take steps for the rehabilitation of such workers. A. Narayanan, director of the non-governmental organisation CHANGE India, who has filed multiple public interest litigation (PIL) petitions in the Madras High Court regarding the enforcement of MS Act, 2013, says that there is a fundamental problem of locating the manual scavengers. In response to a question on manual scavenging in the Rajya Sabha on March 16, 2017, Thawar Chand Gehlot, Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment, stated that as per the provision of the Manual Scavenging Act, 2013, State governments, through their urban and rural local bodies, were required to carry out a survey to identify manual scavengers.
Messy numbers The 13 States and Union Territories have “reported identification of 12,737 manual scavengers up to January, 2017”. The official data on the number of manual scavengers is far from accurate, though even the officially documented statistics is appalling in itself as it exposes the widespread prevalence ofmanual scavenging despite prohibition by law. The Employment of Manual Scavenging and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act, 1993, prohibits the engagement or employment of persons for manually carrying human excreta, and further prohibits the construction or maintenance ofdry latrines. “But this practice still continues in as many as 256 districts in India,” reports Safai Karmachari Andolan. Worse still, most civic agencies have been lax in providing protective gear such as masks and gloves to these workers. The fact-sheet submitted to the Madras High Court by the CHANGEIndia organisation in Tamil Nadu, puts the figure at 209 as on February 23, 2017.
The National Commission for Safai Karamcharis former member Lata Omprakash Mahato, who has been visiting cities such as Chennai for the past few years to study the conditions of manual scavengers, reports: “The Tamil Nadu government submitted a list of 339 manual scavengers. The Chennai Corporation submitted a list of 252 persons. The data compiled by the government is not real. It is misleading. I have visited many areas and I have understood that the number of manual scavengers may be more. The State government should not give wrong data.” Kathir alias Vincent Raj,
Executive Director, Evidence, an organisation working among the socially marginalised sections,also corroborated that more than 300 manual scavengers have died in Tamil Nadu in the last 12 years.
Menace in other forms Conservancy workers in Madurai acknowledge that though insanitary latrines where night soil had to be manually removed are rare these days, manual scavenging continues in other ways. N. Tamilarasi (name changed), a worker with Madurai Corporation, who cleans a toilet located near a theatre on Kamarajar Salai in Madurai every day, says that the toilet floor is covered with human faeces because of the poor condition of the toilet. “Every day, I need to remove blocks in the toilet and clean the floor with brooms,” she says. Another worker M. Karumayil, who was employed for door-to-door collection of garbage from Nagamalai Pudukottai near Madurai, points to the disposal ofbaby diaper and sanitary napkins.
“After collection, we need to manually segregate the degradable and bio-degradable waste. Every day, we come across diapers filled with human faeces,” she says. Many of the officials are also said to be promoting manual scavenging in many areas that have illegal sewage inlets. Representatives of manual scavengers have demanded action violators against ‘No machinery’ The appropriate course for eradicating this problem is to look for a solution, as the existence and extent of the problem in question is undeniable. The focus must now be on eradicating it. It is also important to identify manual scavengers in order to rehabilitate them, says Mr. Narayanan. The MS Act, 2013, under Section 33 states that every local authority or agency should use appropriate technological appliances for cleaning of sewers, septic tanks and other spaces to eliminate manual handling of excreta. However, Mr. Narayanan submitted to the High Court that no appropriate technology or machine has been identified for cleaning of solid sedimentation of faecal matter in septic tanks. “Hence, hazardous cleaning of sewers and septic tanks continues at many places. Other safety gadgets and systematic medical check-up as per the rules remain a non-starter,” he said. He has also pointed out that there is a shortage of sanitary inspectors in all the urban local bodies, including the Chennai Corporation. “These are the committees that are responsible for overseeing proper enforcement ofMS Act, 2013, including investigating violations and awarding punishment as per the act to violators. The Act gives a lot of responsibilities and powers to ‘inspectors,’ which in Tamil Nadu’s context will be Sanitary Inspectors. However, thousands of these posts are lying vacant,” he claims, adding that even the Statelevel and district-level monitoring and vigilance committees mandated by Section 24, 25 and 26 of the MS Act, 2013, Act were not functioning properly. Divya Bharathi, a Maduraibased activist who has closely followed the cases of the death of more than 20 conservancy workers across Tamil Nadu over one year for her recently-released documentary ‘Kakkoos’ (toilet), says: “The Tamil Nadu government had not even formulated its rules for the implementation of MS Act, 2013. The union government has formulated a model set of rules. But even that is vague on investigation of violations.” Mr.Wilson points out that lack of political will is one of the main reasons for the non- implementation of the Act and eradication ofthis inhuman practice. “It is the caste mindset that perpetuates manual scavenging in our country and bureaucrats have no idea what is happening at the ground level,” he says. He expressed disappointment over the Central government’s failure to respond to the country-wide campaign, Bhim Yatra 2015-16, carried out to “create awareness among those engaged in manual scavenging” and “to pressurise the government and parliamentarians” to stop the deplorable practice. The campaign covered 500 districts in 30 States over 125 days starting from December 10, 2015, till April 13, 2016. “There has been no response from the government to the yatra or to the deaths ofmanual scavengers. The Prime Minster has not issued a statement. Why can’t the Prime Minister intervene in this matter,” he asks.
Relief, rehabilitation While the Employment of Manual Scavengers and Construction of Dry Latrines (Prohibition) Act enacted in 1993 prohibited the employment of manual scavengers for manually cleaning dry latrines and also construction of dry toilets, it provided for imprisonment ofup to a year and a fine; the 2013 Act acknowledged the urgency of rehabilitating manual scavengers. The Supreme Court order in 2014 directed that families of all persons who have died in sewerage system (manholes, septic tanks) since 1993 be identified and a compensation of ₹10 lakh paid to their family members. The Tamil Nadu government has paid out to the families of 141 deceased manual scavengers. Dr. Mahato notes: “There are various schemes for manual scavengers. They even receive ₹40,000 as instant financial help to quit the job. But the schemes are not reaching the real beneficiaries.” On the other hand, Chennai Corporation officials say training for the rehabilitation of manual scavengers has started. “We started using machines for desilting drains. Stormwater drains along some roads were cleaned using machines,” says an official. However, the use of machines for clearing drains was suspended owing to funds crunch.
Accountability issue Activists say that while providing compensation to the family of deceased workers has become less problematic in Tamil Nadu, it is difficult to bring those responsible for the situation to book. In Madurai, two incidents within a year which resulted in the death of three conservancy workers, are cases in point. “While the death of Solainathan was inside a private property, the death of other two workers in October 2015 happened when they were working for the Madurai Corporation. Though some officials were included in the FIR for the latter, no action has been taken against them,” alleges Ms. Divya. Though cases were registered by the police under The Prohibition of Employment as Manual Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act of 2013 owing to protests by the family of the deceased and activists, no progress has been made in those cases so far.
“In most cases, senior officials conveniently escape from FIR by pointing fingers at the contractors to whom the jobs had been outsourced. However, even these contractors or their supervisors never get punished,” she says. S. Muthulakshmi (20), a resident ofHeera Nagar near Melavasal in Madurai, was expecting her first child when her husband A. Solainathan (26) died of asphyxiation while cleaning an underground sewer inside a posh gated community in August 2016. Though Madurai district administration made the residents’ association of the gated community cough up ₹10 lakh as compensation, Muthulakshmi, a single mother now, feels that deaths like that of her husband will not stop until stringent action is taken against those who engage workers for manual scavenging and the hazardous cleaning of sewers. R. Babu of Social Awareness Society for Youth in Cuddalore states that the government officials concerned should be held responsible for perpetuating the practice. The Tamil Nadu Adi Andhra Arunthathiyar Mahasabha has been demanding that the government create awareness of the prohibition of manual scavenging. “No person has been convicted for employment of persons in manual scavenging,” said M.Ravaniah, organising secretary of the Mahasabha. (With inputs from Aloysius Xavier Lopez and Pon Vasanth Arunachalam)
The Hindu– Sunday Supplement issue.
shrishri71 